Re: ASSM vs. non-ASSM

From: ddf <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 25, 1:21 pm, "Gerard H. Pille" <> wrote:
> Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > I am engaged in a discussion about moving from 10g -->  11g. The
> > tablespaces in this particular 10G are all created with the manual
> > segment space management. I am reading the blogs and am aware of all the
> > troubles that ASSM can cause, ranging from wasting space to problems with
> > the free lists and even some spurious corruption issues.
> > However, Oracle made ASSM default in version 10g, and this project is
> > about upgrading a large production DB. What are the opinions here? Does
> > it make sense to go with manual SSM  or should I go with ASSM?
> We have a couple of tables in which there are continuous inserts and deletes, at a dreadful
> rate, and we have to rebuild the indexes every week, to keep size and performance in check.
> Could not fall back to MSSM, because system is also ASSM, I seem to remember.

Richard Foote discussed index growth in a blog post a couple of weeks ago and through some testing of my own I discovered a reverse-key index could help keep the index size down:

It might help in your situation.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Wed Jan 25 2012 - 15:19:09 CST

Original text of this message